Are people being overly harsh on Canelo since his loss to Bivol?

That's true, people hate being proved wrong and what Canelo did to GGG they did not see coming. It's one thing to disagree with the decision in GGG 1 and thought GGG did enough, that's understandable. But to say there's no way that fight was a draw is a whole nother animal.

In no way was GGG 1 a clear GGG win, it's arguable either way. You can't score with your emotions, and a lot of people did that for GGG, especially in that first fight because they expected GGG to dominate. Canelo proved the doubters wrong in that first fight. However you scored it, Canelo did much better than expected. He outboxed him early, rocked him with big shots in the middle rounds, and came on late. Yes GGG outworked him in many rounds but Canelo landed the better punches in most rounds, showed better defense, better counter punching, better body punching etc. You need to value these aspects in your scoring.

I get giving close rounds to GGG in the first fight and seeing him outwork Canelo and Canelo not throwing enough, but the same people who make that argument are hypocrites in other fights when they claim to value clean punching instead of volume. Scoring is and will always be subjective, and my approach has always been to respect people who see it differently, but at the same time, challenge them on why they scored it how they did and see where we disagree.

I saw Canelo GGG 1 as a close but clear Canelo victory. Clean punching, defense, ring generalship, body punching, counter punching, harder punches all were in favor of Canelo. GGG threw more punches, landed a couple more but Canelo made GGG fight his fight and GGG was visibly frustrated at his inability to land or hurt Canelo. That part of it isn't really debatable. Even if you scored it for GGG, how Canelo fought, the kind of shots he landed on GGG, how often he made GGG miss, that was a victory in itself for Canelo.

But if you think GGG won the 1st fight, or won it wide, or clear or whatever you think, that's your view. But to act like it wasn't a close fight and couldn't be scored a draw or for Canelo that's delusional. We all disagree with Byrd's super wide card, but that's far from a draw or a close win either way, which is what it was.

Maybe. Remember, Canelo stopped Plant but Benavidez couldn't stop Plant. Benavidez can punch, I would say he's capable of stopping Ryder but it's not a sure thing. Ryder might be able to survive against Benavidez. The problem for Ryder against Benavidez is the lack of a jab. You need to jab to keep Benavidez off you, like Plant did for much of the fight. Canelo is definitely capable of stopping Ryder and he almost did. Benavidez as well but Ryder is tough as nails and hard for anyone to stop. Mainly because Ryder has such strong legs. Even if he's getting pummelled his legs don't give out.

MD, 9-3, 8-4, 6-6. Yes Canelo was outclassed, he was very young at the time and inexperienced against slick boxers. He had the deck stacked against him, his promoter was in rehab, he was drained due to a shameful Mayweather imposed catchweight. And he still fought his ass off and gave Mayweather one of his toughest fights. And that was a P4P #1 Mayweather who despite being 36 was still at the top of his game.

Hard earned draw that was arguable either way, agree to disagree. And after that first fight, GGG challenged Canelo to fight come forward, and we know what happened in the rematch. And the 3rd fight GGG had little fight in him until it was too late.

Hard to know how he would have done against McCallum, Hearns or Hagler. You act like you have some crystal ball and would know he would lose. Could Hearns take Canelo's body shots, or a hard straight right hand. Canelo is a much bigger puncher than any of these guys. I doubt Hearns would be able to last 12 against Prime Canelo. He's be running for his life. Hagler at his best would be very competitive. McCallum who knows.

What I would say to Canelo haters is that you will miss him when he retires so you should appreciate him now. The same people who say Canelo wouldn't stand a chance again McCallum, Hearns or Hagler are the same people who said he would get steamrolled by GGG and look what happened. The same people who thought there was no way in hell he would beat Kovalev at 175. Canelo constantly proves the haters wrong so when you make claims like this as to what would happen in your fantasy (all due respect) it's hard to take that seriously given how many times people have doubted Canelo and he's proved the haters wrong.

Canelo is a legend in the sport, and if you think he wouldn't stand a chance against McCallum, Hearns or Hagler, I don't know what to tell you, only to say, stop, take a deep breath and appreciate Canelo, his punching power, his overall skill set before you make such bold claims.

 

Despite being critical of Canelo, I'd say yes. Public perception of fighters in this social media age tends to drasitically flip-flop. One moment Saul is Mexico's greatest, then he's a target for those daft, 'This is What Happens When You Go Up Too Many weights!' type of videos.

 

I didn't think either would be a challenge to Canelo then.

 

Charlo hell nah,
I thought Bivol was risky still picked Nelo to Win. Glad I didn’t bet though!

 

It's not just loss, it's how he lose that fight.

All fanboys saying he is just too good and then he loses 11 rounds to very heavy underdog, without Bivol being even tired.

 

I am sure its beens said, but "people" know that Canelo should have 2-4 more losses on his record, and this is a bit of shadenfreude.

 

Regardless of what you think of him we will all miss him when he hangs up the gloves. Like him or not he did always challenge himself and would fight a lot more often than other "elite fighters". Most importantly he always came to fight and was 100% prepared. Im not a fan of his at all but i do respect him and what he has accomplished in boxing.

 

Have they ever been overly harsh on canelo? Guy is maybe a top 15 mexican boxer alltime. People want to call him the greatest which really cheapens mexican boxing. Either canelo is the greatest mexican boxer alltime and mexican boxing flat out sucks or hes top 15 to 20 mexican fighters all time. cant have both.

 

That's not what happened. He won 5 rounds. 4 of those rounds (the first four) were very close and each of those were certainly arguable for Bivol, but to state matter of factly that he lost 11 rounds is intellectually dishonest.

 

What is this a joke. Put a Trout in with a Hearns or Mccallum and I promise you he gets run over hard. Put a Lara in with a prime Hearns and Lara does not last the distance.
All this crap about how Canelo can punch- who did he ever ice with one shot? Kahn? Who? Kirkland? Give me a break.
Canelo has basically gone on the European tour for years now and you know it. All this talk because he won a lighheavy title from a fighter who was WAY past it- look what happened when he faced a lighheavy in his prime- he got his head boxed off.
Benavidez is a much stronger puncher then Canelo thats not even a question and I can almost say with certain Canelo does not go anywhere near him.
There is no possible way a Canelo would ever beat a prime Hagler at middleweight- they are two different fighters who came up different.
Hell Canelo would have had a hard time with the Philly middleweights Hagler had to fight.
Now all the sudden Canelo wasnt ready for a Mayweather after he called Mayweather out? So tell us what rounds did you award Canelo in that fight?
So tell us what legendary wins does Canelo have? What great fighter did he defeat?
You can have Canelo I dont care- I know exactly what a great fighter looks like as Ive seen them and Canelo isnt one of them.
Mexico has produced a TON of great boxers over the years and to say Canelo is top ten is just so an injustice.

 

You got some good points there just don't put Hearns in the middle of this. MoFo was stopped 4 times while Canelo went 36 rounds with the most feared puncher @160 and barely flinched.

 

Hearns was stopped THREE TIMES the last one was stopped because of his ankle. Two by alltime greats. And Hearns was never lost at jr.middleweight which includes wins over Benitez AND he knocked out DURAN. Whats Canelos two top wins at jr.middleweight again?

 

Boxing is like that sometimes.....people are like that. Look in 1984, Madonna had her Holiday and Borderline and was cool. Suddenly Cyndi Lauper launched Girls Just Wanna Have Fun, The Goonies R Good Enough, She Bop and All Through the Night and she was cool Then Madonna launched Like a Virgin and Material Girl and she was cooler again.

Thats how it is. You win, people love you, you lose people never heard of you.

To put it into perspective also, in 1982, the man on your avatar was on top of the world, the best Latin boxer in the world. He loses to Aaron Pryor and Roberto Duran beats Davey Moore in 1983, and suddenly he was washed up and Duran was the best Latin fighter in the world again.

 

Mexico has produced some of the greatest fighters to ever lace them up. The problem comes when Canelo's record & the "championships" he's won are compared to the real ATGs, who typically have a good amount of losses on their records. That's because they fought higher-caliber fighters & fought them more often. It's also because everyone has a bad showing here & there.

I've said it before: IMO Canelo is a good fighter, nothing more or less & I say that with all boxing history in view, so that's actually pretty good. But he just doesn't have the competition needed to be considered with the ATGs, not his fault, ALL fighters in this era suffer from it. And it's all the promoters and sanctioning bodies' shennanigens & greed.

I don't blame the boxers today at the top that take little risk in their careers while earning much more than they would fighting the guys WE want to see them against. Less damage taken & more $$$ received, makes great sense but not great fights.

You think Sugar Ray Robinson wouldn't play the game today & fight the undeserving challengers, while at the same time make a lot more money?